Absolutely. Causing "alarm and distress to a member of the public" is an offense in the UK.
In this case, though, you had a photographer that sounded like a total prat, ranting on about his rights and refusing to answer reasonable questions by a police officer (listen to the audio). In no surprising development, the person who antagonized the police got in trouble, whereas the other people in the area doing the same thing (http://julesmattsson.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-romford-incident/ and read the comments) were left alone.
As much as I'm all for civil rights and all that, being polite does a lot more to stop police harassment than being That Guy who watched an ACLU video one time on Youtube and decided he'd give the police what-for. In some states here in the US, you actually do have to answer reasonable questions from a police officer, which has caused all sorts of grief to the annoying twits that make up all sorts of rights that don't exist.
Not saying that the police don't harass people - I've been harassed several times in my life, either by myself and with friends, and once my father was threatened with jail because he wouldn't provide his SSN to the mentally unstable Texas Ranger asking for it, but in a LOT of these cases, if you don't walk around with a chip on your shoulder, the police don't either.
Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh make things up, they literally lie on air and in print, so throwing them together with Daily Kos, which at worst selectively covers stories that illustrate its world-view, is a troll-worthy attempt
Maybe if you got your information from sources other than Media Matters, you'd realize how stupid you sound when you say this.
If New York liberals insist on bragging about their intellectual bravado in believing "nothing is sacrosanct," it would really help if they could stop being the most easily offended, P.C., group-think, thin-skinned weanies in the entire universe and maybe ease up on the college "hate speech" codes, politically correct firings, and bans on military recruiters. (From today's article on www.anncoulter.com)
Please let me know which of the above claims are inaccurate.:)
I don't know, but liberals are just as self-contradictory. Flip around all the positions you listed above - liberals are anti-death penalty, but pro-abortion, for example.
Both conservatives and liberals are against free speech - though they both profess to support free speech - they just want to restrict it for different reasons. Obscenity and anti-patriotic speech (conservatives), any statements-that-might-offend-someone (liberals).
If I had to define conservatism (as opposed to the platform of the Republican party), I'd say it was, in a nutshell: 1) Lower taxes 2) Smaller federal government, except for: 3) Strong national defense
Liberals, by contrast are for promoting a European-style democracy, with a large government, high taxes, and strong social programs.
Libertarians are a strange combination of drug-legalizers and gun nuts, but more or less agree with conservative principles except when it comes to gov't interference in individual liberties.
The Greens mostly agree with Democrats, except they think that Democrats don't really go far enough. They're the people, for example, that protested the health care bill for not nationalizing the industry. They generally support destroying industry and implementing nonsensical no-growth laws.
>>Until then, please let me focus on trying to not fail out of school, okay?
Sure. No worries, dude.
Just one final clarification for you - keep in mind that my comments on error bars were musings on the falsifiability of global warming, from a philosophy of science perspective.
>>Well, after doing a small survey in our office... only 3 of 20 software engineers had even heard of him, only one knew anything about him...
Which of them went through real university program in software engineering?
I find it implausible that anyone could spend four years studying algorithms (among other things) without hearing his name dropped at least once.
Of course, given the quality of our education system, it's possible they heard the name and promptly forgot it. Whenever I guest lecture at the local community college (about once a semester) I find it fascinating all the things the students have never heard of.
>>Unfortunately, NG tends to be the cheapest to build a plant for, but the most expensive on fuel - and Natural Gas is one of the more volatile markets.
Indeed. I've tracked Natural Gas prices over the last 10 years, and they fluctuate wildly. The MIT report notes this, and expects that in the long run, NG will actually be displaced by other technologies. (Slashdot summary wrong? Heaven forfend.)
It's hard to actually pin down "average costs" of building new power plants, as they can vary in cost regionally due to a variety of factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelised_energy_cost). The California DOE surveyed existing power plants to generate levelized cost estimates for nuclear and gas (in a variety of designs) and found nuclear to be about on par; cheaper, if 15% subsidies are included.
Needless to say, nuclear doesn't generate CO2, but NG does (though less than coal), so it puzzles me somewhat that they're pushing NG as anything other than a "well it's better than coal" option.
Honestly, if we want to meet all our CO2 targets without giving up cars, switching our power plants to nuclear is probably the best option, and then using coal to generate our gasoline. Defund the middle east, halve our CO2 production, and keep the miners in West Virginia employed. It's win-win for America.
Again, instead of talking about all this other stuff, which is incidental, you could just answer them.
>>I've already explained that I have serious OCD and can't answer all these insults without referencing all the times I've already answered the same cynical accusations
Which is completely meaningless to me. I don't care that you don't like the fact that climatology is kinda-sorta science. I don't care this insults you, however it is an accurate description.
That's why I stopped the conversation at that point and formulated four very simple questions for you, which you've refused to answer over and over again. I simply can't understand how you can spend so much time arguing with me, and yet still can't spend the five minutes to define your position on the issues surrounding global warming. It feels like pulling teeth.
>>That's the fourth time you've accused me of being dishonest, and of not really being a scientist.
Then honestly answer my four questions. That's all I've been asking for.
The issue about the label of 'science' one is not an attack on you, but rather a philosophical musing on the nature of climatology.
>>I'm now convinced that you're just playing a cynical game to see how much of my time you can waste.
If you spent half as much time actually answering the four questions (and again, I don't need a fully referenced essay) instead of engaging in meta-conversation... well, we wouldn't be having this meta-conversation.
>>People too cowardly to tear every Communist Party member's head off deserve the kind of rule the Party gives them.
Why on earth would they do that?
The party line, and what the people honestly and truly believe for the most part, is that "China isn't perfect, but it's getting better."
When I visited China, people were actually very proud of their country's progress in the last 20 years. While there's a lot that could be said about a lot of things, I think there's very little support for a popular uprising these days.
>>You will note that the strikes are ONLY occurring against foreign companies. Not a one on local companies.
You don't follow Chinese news, then?
Strikes occur all over China, all the time. Slashdot only covers stories like the Foxconn suicides, but it's not at all accurate to say that strikes are only occurring against foreign companies.
>>He says he "hasn't gotten around" to memtesting his RAM yet. So, let me get this straight... he implies that random cosmic rays caused the error, but he hasn't yet tested his ram for what is the most possible cause of the issue?
Yeah, nerds are kind of weird like that. We'll "waste time" figuring out something simply because it is interesting.
>>Then he goes on to explain that you don't even need to reboot your machine due to damn cosmic radiation. Or kernel updates. Because you have Ksplice.
That's probably a more elegant tool than what our netops guy at UCSD used to do, which was to manually patch the kernel on the fly using a debugger, because he couldn't reboot the machine. I think it was because a custom application had been running on it for years, but no longer existed on disk anywhere.
>>You know, as a resident of Southern California, I don't get many opportunities to call anybody else a weenie*...
Seriously.
Since when is a mere 5.5 earthquake front page news on Slashdot? I guess people in other parts of the country don't really understand that a 5.5 is quite weak.
>>The environmentally minded want us off coal and onto nuclear or renewable power as fast as possible.
"Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region."
>>And to address the grandparents statement - I've always felt the notion that being critical of an idea somehow creates the responsibility to come up with a better one to be childish nonsense. It's just another way of saying "I don't like being criticized, so I'm not going to listen to you".
More importantly, environmentalists need to wake up and understand that while NO solution is perfect, there's a lot of solutions a lot better than our current situation. But as long as they keep attacking solar, tidal, hydro, nuclear, and other green plants that people are trying to build to remove our dependency on coal and gas, without regard for the consequences, the status quo will continue.
There's nothing more hypocritical and stupid than global warming protesters chaining themselves to the fence of a nuclear power plant.
>>What would happen if you installed hydroelectric dams at the openings to the Red sea, The straight of Gibraltar, and the Black sea; then used the whole Mediterranean as the power storage device, by pumping Atlantic ocean water into it at the straight of Gibraltar?
If you could dam the *Strait* of Gibraltar, then you wouldn't need to use it as a power storage device. The tidal power generated from it would be massive.
>>The problem is that nobody in the US wants to pay to run the power cables from these areas to population centres.
Nah. We've tried building large scale solar plants here, but, for example, because we had 13 tortoises living in a desert the size of some of the smaller states, environmentalists got the sites shut down. With the support of our "environmental" senators Feinstein and Boxer.
>>Not to mention that the 3G iPad is $130 extra, and doesn't include free 3G for the store so you can make an impulse book buy wherever you are. That's major in the convenience factor of the device.
Yeah, exactly. Paying for 3G is a huge issue - it's like adding $360/year to the cost of an iPad. B&N also offers 20% the purchase of a Nook, which is nice. They were offering it for $259-($50 free gift certificate)=$209 up through yesterday, so I guess the price reduction to $199 makes sense.
To contrast the two: Nook 3G: $199, 3G+Wifi (no monthly), 2G+MicroSD storage, digital ink + color touchscreen, Android (easily rootable) iPad 3G: $629, 3G+Wifi (used to be $30/mo unlimited, now $25/mo for 2G), 16G non-expandable storage, nice color touchscreen, iPhone OS, much better at surfing the web, sending email, and looking at photos.
Without a doubt, if all I wanted was an ebook reader, I'd get a Nook. If I wanted a general purpose portable device to surf the web and send email... well, I wouldn't buy an iPad. I'd just keep using my Android smartphone. I have no desire to drop that kind of cash for an iPad.
>>That's the third time you've accused me of being dishonest.
We'd never even talked about the Phil Jones issue before, so your attempts to avoid answering it (because you'd answered it before) were indeed dishonest. You've now answered that question, but there's three to go. Just a short paragraph answer to each one please - I won't call you dishonest for not thoroughly referencing your summary, but I will if you keep saying you've answered them before, because I'd never *formulated* them in summary before.
As to your strawmen arguments: "You're just innocently pointing out that they're bullshitting deceitful hacks who aren't scientists any more than economists are"
Uh, no. Since you've ostensibly read my posts before, you know that I was very careful to say that I don't think that people like RC.org are generally deceitful, but rather politically biased (yes, "hacks"), shooting withering attacks on anyone that disagrees with them, and yet giving free passes to people like Al Gore or Phil Jones. Occasionally I think climatologists' arguments are wrong (like RC.org and your stance towards Watts), but overall I don't think there's any great conspiracy to invent AGW or anything like that.
If you want to take a shot at defending the mistakes in An Inconvenient Truth, let me know. RC.org was borderline lying on some of its points on the movie.
In any event, you shouldn't take offense at being lumped in the same category as economists, in terms of observation, modeling, and prediction, economics is the closest field to climatology. The point I was trying to make is that if climatology is science, the economics is science. If economics is not science, then climatology is not science. Or to put it another way, I think we need new labels for a category somewhere between hard science and social science.
"Do you think I've repeatedly insulted myself, or have I simply been honest about my credentials?"
No... but referencing the Salem Hypothesis (a reference to Creationism) *was* insulting. I don't mind if you were offended I lumped you into the same category with economics, but I think the field is closer than you might think.
"Second, you mentioned the "0.3C per decade" prediction from emission Scenario A, but you've repeatedly [dumbscientist.com] ignored Scenario B which Hansen himself called "more plausible" in 1988."
That's great, but I'm not talking about Hansen88, but AR1, which focuses on Scenario A. It's possible this was done to scare politicians into action, but when one reads it, the +0.3C increase appears to be the best guess.
"You accuse Gavin Schmidt of being a bullshitting deceitful hack who isn't really a scientist." "It's interesting that you claim physicists who study the climate are inflating their error bars in a blatant attempt to avoid falsification" "...which obviously means he's deliberately inflating them to avoid falsification."
You wanted to know which statements were strawmen? These are some more.
You've missed my point repeatedly on error in predictions, so I'm not going to bother repeating myself again. (See how annoying that is, when someone does that?)
>>that the simplest voting systems don't actually give a result which represents the opinion of the people who are voting.
Except in cases where 0, 1, or 2 candidates are running for office, no system can both: 1) represent the opinion of the populace and 2) be immune to gaming the system.
Slashdot Mirror
>>the intentional vagary of the law
Absolutely. Causing "alarm and distress to a member of the public" is an offense in the UK.
In this case, though, you had a photographer that sounded like a total prat, ranting on about his rights and refusing to answer reasonable questions by a police officer (listen to the audio). In no surprising development, the person who antagonized the police got in trouble, whereas the other people in the area doing the same thing (http://julesmattsson.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-romford-incident/ and read the comments) were left alone.
As much as I'm all for civil rights and all that, being polite does a lot more to stop police harassment than being That Guy who watched an ACLU video one time on Youtube and decided he'd give the police what-for. In some states here in the US, you actually do have to answer reasonable questions from a police officer, which has caused all sorts of grief to the annoying twits that make up all sorts of rights that don't exist.
Not saying that the police don't harass people - I've been harassed several times in my life, either by myself and with friends, and once my father was threatened with jail because he wouldn't provide his SSN to the mentally unstable Texas Ranger asking for it, but in a LOT of these cases, if you don't walk around with a chip on your shoulder, the police don't either.
Maybe if you got your information from sources other than Media Matters, you'd realize how stupid you sound when you say this.
If New York liberals insist on bragging about their intellectual bravado in believing "nothing is sacrosanct," it would really help if they could stop being the most easily offended, P.C., group-think, thin-skinned weanies in the entire universe and maybe ease up on the college "hate speech" codes, politically correct firings, and bans on military recruiters.
(From today's article on www.anncoulter.com)
Please let me know which of the above claims are inaccurate. :)
>>I mean, what ties all that together?
I don't know, but liberals are just as self-contradictory. Flip around all the positions you listed above - liberals are anti-death penalty, but pro-abortion, for example.
Both conservatives and liberals are against free speech - though they both profess to support free speech - they just want to restrict it for different reasons. Obscenity and anti-patriotic speech (conservatives), any statements-that-might-offend-someone (liberals).
If I had to define conservatism (as opposed to the platform of the Republican party), I'd say it was, in a nutshell:
1) Lower taxes
2) Smaller federal government, except for:
3) Strong national defense
Liberals, by contrast are for promoting a European-style democracy, with a large government, high taxes, and strong social programs.
Libertarians are a strange combination of drug-legalizers and gun nuts, but more or less agree with conservative principles except when it comes to gov't interference in individual liberties.
The Greens mostly agree with Democrats, except they think that Democrats don't really go far enough. They're the people, for example, that protested the health care bill for not nationalizing the industry. They generally support destroying industry and implementing nonsensical no-growth laws.
>>Until then, please let me focus on trying to not fail out of school, okay?
Sure. No worries, dude.
Just one final clarification for you - keep in mind that my comments on error bars were musings on the falsifiability of global warming, from a philosophy of science perspective.
>>Well, after doing a small survey in our office... only 3 of 20 software engineers had even heard of him, only one knew anything about him...
Which of them went through real university program in software engineering?
I find it implausible that anyone could spend four years studying algorithms (among other things) without hearing his name dropped at least once.
Of course, given the quality of our education system, it's possible they heard the name and promptly forgot it. Whenever I guest lecture at the local community college (about once a semester) I find it fascinating all the things the students have never heard of.
>>Unfortunately, NG tends to be the cheapest to build a plant for, but the most expensive on fuel - and Natural Gas is one of the more volatile markets.
Indeed. I've tracked Natural Gas prices over the last 10 years, and they fluctuate wildly. The MIT report notes this, and expects that in the long run, NG will actually be displaced by other technologies. (Slashdot summary wrong? Heaven forfend.)
It's hard to actually pin down "average costs" of building new power plants, as they can vary in cost regionally due to a variety of factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelised_energy_cost). The California DOE surveyed existing power plants to generate levelized cost estimates for nuclear and gas (in a variety of designs) and found nuclear to be about on par; cheaper, if 15% subsidies are included.
Needless to say, nuclear doesn't generate CO2, but NG does (though less than coal), so it puzzles me somewhat that they're pushing NG as anything other than a "well it's better than coal" option.
Honestly, if we want to meet all our CO2 targets without giving up cars, switching our power plants to nuclear is probably the best option, and then using coal to generate our gasoline. Defund the middle east, halve our CO2 production, and keep the miners in West Virginia employed. It's win-win for America.
>>No, you didn't just ask four questions
Again, instead of talking about all this other stuff, which is incidental, you could just answer them.
>>I've already explained that I have serious OCD and can't answer all these insults without referencing all the times I've already answered the same cynical accusations
Which is completely meaningless to me. I don't care that you don't like the fact that climatology is kinda-sorta science. I don't care this insults you, however it is an accurate description.
That's why I stopped the conversation at that point and formulated four very simple questions for you, which you've refused to answer over and over again. I simply can't understand how you can spend so much time arguing with me, and yet still can't spend the five minutes to define your position on the issues surrounding global warming. It feels like pulling teeth.
>>That's the fourth time you've accused me of being dishonest, and of not really being a scientist.
Then honestly answer my four questions. That's all I've been asking for.
The issue about the label of 'science' one is not an attack on you, but rather a philosophical musing on the nature of climatology.
>>I'm now convinced that you're just playing a cynical game to see how much of my time you can waste.
If you spent half as much time actually answering the four questions (and again, I don't need a fully referenced essay) instead of engaging in meta-conversation... well, we wouldn't be having this meta-conversation.
>>People too cowardly to tear every Communist Party member's head off deserve the kind of rule the Party gives them.
Why on earth would they do that?
The party line, and what the people honestly and truly believe for the most part, is that "China isn't perfect, but it's getting better."
When I visited China, people were actually very proud of their country's progress in the last 20 years. While there's a lot that could be said about a lot of things, I think there's very little support for a popular uprising these days.
>>You will note that the strikes are ONLY occurring against foreign companies. Not a one on local companies.
You don't follow Chinese news, then?
Strikes occur all over China, all the time. Slashdot only covers stories like the Foxconn suicides, but it's not at all accurate to say that strikes are only occurring against foreign companies.
>>The real question is why hexes weren't in use all along.
Because hexes look ugly?
Yeah, "20% are malicious" is pure and utter FUD.
"20% of apps might use personal data" just doesn't have the same ring to it, I guess.
>>He says he "hasn't gotten around" to memtesting his RAM yet. So, let me get this straight ... he implies that random cosmic rays caused the error, but he hasn't yet tested his ram for what is the most possible cause of the issue?
Yeah, nerds are kind of weird like that. We'll "waste time" figuring out something simply because it is interesting.
>>Then he goes on to explain that you don't even need to reboot your machine due to damn cosmic radiation. Or kernel updates. Because you have Ksplice.
That's probably a more elegant tool than what our netops guy at UCSD used to do, which was to manually patch the kernel on the fly using a debugger, because he couldn't reboot the machine. I think it was because a custom application had been running on it for years, but no longer existed on disk anywhere.
Dude was pretty hardcore.
On /.? We had a waterspout in San Diego, which never happens, but nobody cared. A minor earthquake in areas not prone to them is about as newsworthy.
>>So I'd like to see a soccer player take that hit.
Soccer players are GREAT at getting hit.
They just roll around on the ground, clutching their leg afterward.
Was why I quit playing soccer, actually... a guy ran into me from behind and was so good at faking an injury that I got red carded for it.
>>You know, as a resident of Southern California, I don't get many opportunities to call anybody else a weenie*...
Seriously.
Since when is a mere 5.5 earthquake front page news on Slashdot? I guess people in other parts of the country don't really understand that a 5.5 is quite weak.
>>The environmentally minded want us off coal and onto nuclear or renewable power as fast as possible.
"Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/business/energy-environment/22solar.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1261504841-TLNmsaEvUp/AYjwht40LoQ
>>And to address the grandparents statement - I've always felt the notion that being critical of an idea somehow creates the responsibility to come up with a better one to be childish nonsense. It's just another way of saying "I don't like being criticized, so I'm not going to listen to you".
More importantly, environmentalists need to wake up and understand that while NO solution is perfect, there's a lot of solutions a lot better than our current situation. But as long as they keep attacking solar, tidal, hydro, nuclear, and other green plants that people are trying to build to remove our dependency on coal and gas, without regard for the consequences, the status quo will continue.
There's nothing more hypocritical and stupid than global warming protesters chaining themselves to the fence of a nuclear power plant.
Barbary pirates?
The GP is probably right the EU would need to put a bunch of guys with guns there... but it shouldn't be a significant percentage of operating costs.
>>What would happen if you installed hydroelectric dams at the openings to the Red sea, The straight of Gibraltar, and the Black sea; then used the whole Mediterranean as the power storage device, by pumping Atlantic ocean water into it at the straight of Gibraltar?
If you could dam the *Strait* of Gibraltar, then you wouldn't need to use it as a power storage device. The tidal power generated from it would be massive.
>>The problem is that nobody in the US wants to pay to run the power cables from these areas to population centres.
Nah. We've tried building large scale solar plants here, but, for example, because we had 13 tortoises living in a desert the size of some of the smaller states, environmentalists got the sites shut down. With the support of our "environmental" senators Feinstein and Boxer.
>>Here we are, trying to do something positive, and environmentalists come down hard on it. Is anyone here surprised or consider this atypical?
No, not really.
Environmentalists are as responsible as anyone for the current mess we're in.
>>Not to mention that the 3G iPad is $130 extra, and doesn't include free 3G for the store so you can make an impulse book buy wherever you are. That's major in the convenience factor of the device.
Yeah, exactly. Paying for 3G is a huge issue - it's like adding $360/year to the cost of an iPad. B&N also offers 20% the purchase of a Nook, which is nice. They were offering it for $259-($50 free gift certificate)=$209 up through yesterday, so I guess the price reduction to $199 makes sense.
To contrast the two:
Nook 3G: $199, 3G+Wifi (no monthly), 2G+MicroSD storage, digital ink + color touchscreen, Android (easily rootable)
iPad 3G: $629, 3G+Wifi (used to be $30/mo unlimited, now $25/mo for 2G), 16G non-expandable storage, nice color touchscreen, iPhone OS, much better at surfing the web, sending email, and looking at photos.
Without a doubt, if all I wanted was an ebook reader, I'd get a Nook. If I wanted a general purpose portable device to surf the web and send email... well, I wouldn't buy an iPad. I'd just keep using my Android smartphone. I have no desire to drop that kind of cash for an iPad.
>>That's the third time you've accused me of being dishonest.
We'd never even talked about the Phil Jones issue before, so your attempts to avoid answering it (because you'd answered it before) were indeed dishonest. You've now answered that question, but there's three to go. Just a short paragraph answer to each one please - I won't call you dishonest for not thoroughly referencing your summary, but I will if you keep saying you've answered them before, because I'd never *formulated* them in summary before.
As to your strawmen arguments:
"You're just innocently pointing out that they're bullshitting deceitful hacks who aren't scientists any more than economists are"
Uh, no. Since you've ostensibly read my posts before, you know that I was very careful to say that I don't think that people like RC.org are generally deceitful, but rather politically biased (yes, "hacks"), shooting withering attacks on anyone that disagrees with them, and yet giving free passes to people like Al Gore or Phil Jones. Occasionally I think climatologists' arguments are wrong (like RC.org and your stance towards Watts), but overall I don't think there's any great conspiracy to invent AGW or anything like that.
Since you like to reference my posts mirrored on your own website, you should see that I've said this repeatedly, even in the post you quoted above:
http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrupt-climate-change#comment-1537
If you want to take a shot at defending the mistakes in An Inconvenient Truth, let me know. RC.org was borderline lying on some of its points on the movie.
In any event, you shouldn't take offense at being lumped in the same category as economists, in terms of observation, modeling, and prediction, economics is the closest field to climatology. The point I was trying to make is that if climatology is science, the economics is science. If economics is not science, then climatology is not science. Or to put it another way, I think we need new labels for a category somewhere between hard science and social science.
"Do you think I've repeatedly insulted myself, or have I simply been honest about my credentials?"
No... but referencing the Salem Hypothesis (a reference to Creationism) *was* insulting. I don't mind if you were offended I lumped you into the same category with economics, but I think the field is closer than you might think.
"Second, you mentioned the "0.3C per decade" prediction from emission Scenario A, but you've repeatedly [dumbscientist.com] ignored Scenario B which Hansen himself called "more plausible" in 1988."
That's great, but I'm not talking about Hansen88, but AR1, which focuses on Scenario A. It's possible this was done to scare politicians into action, but when one reads it, the +0.3C increase appears to be the best guess.
"You accuse Gavin Schmidt of being a bullshitting deceitful hack who isn't really a scientist."
"It's interesting that you claim physicists who study the climate are inflating their error bars in a blatant attempt to avoid falsification"
"...which obviously means he's deliberately inflating them to avoid falsification."
You wanted to know which statements were strawmen? These are some more.
You've missed my point repeatedly on error in predictions, so I'm not going to bother repeating myself again. (See how annoying that is, when someone does that?)
>>that the simplest voting systems don't actually give a result which represents the opinion of the people who are voting.
Except in cases where 0, 1, or 2 candidates are running for office, no system can both:
1) represent the opinion of the populace and
2) be immune to gaming the system.